On the face of it, an off-the-cuff remark by John Kerry in London on Monday appears to have opened the door to a diplomatic resolution of the stand-off over Syria’s deployment of chemical weapons. However, the response to the US Secretary of State’s half-hearted suggestion that Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile could be placed under international control and destroyed was so swift that it is hard not to see some choreography – or else just sheer relief – at work.

The Russians picked up on the idea immediately, and pressed the Assad regime to agree. President Obama said that if Syria did comply (about which he was sceptical), he would put on hold his plans for a military strike in response to the atrocity in Damascus last month; the US, Britain and France have now tabled a resolution in the UN Security Council. Rarely have the diplomatic wheels spun so quickly.

None the less, we are entitled to be suspicious. Why has Vladimir Putin, for so long the barrier to any action against Assad, turned peacemaker? Is this merely a delaying tactic to protect his client, and undermine the already weak public support in the West for military strikes? Moreover, how will it be possible to verify the destruction of the chemical weapons while civil war rages in Syria – assuming the regime even admits publicly to possessing them? Will Assad call a ceasefire to allow inspectors to do their work; and will the rebels agree to one? Clearly, the highly complex process of confirming whether Syria has complied would be fraught with difficulty, and could take years.

The first test of Russia’s good faith will come when the resolution is put before the UN Security Council, possibly today. It would be tabled under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which authorises military action, and is expected to threaten “extremely serious” consequences if Syria breaches its conditions. Last night, however, the Kremlin said it would table its own resolution, which immediately calls Mr Putin’s motives into question. Yet despite such caveats, the world’s powers are right to explore all avenues to bring about their stated aim, which is to prevent Assad using chemical weapons again. Undoubtedly, the way this matter has been handled here and in Washington has looked clumsy and uncertain, with Mr Obama a reluctant warrior and David Cameron unable to deliver Commons support for a military strike. It allows Mr Putin to look reasonable and emollient, characteristics that will not be recognised in Georgia or Chechnya. On the other hand, if the Russian leader takes responsibility for ensuring that Assad toes the line, he will be expected by the international community to deliver on his word.